ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2026
Do adults with cardiovascular disease risk show meaningful reactivity to physical activity measurement? Coordinated analysis across six studies.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the extent of physical activity (PA) measurement reactivity among adults ages 40-60 with risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), to inform best practices for addressing reactivity in PA research and intervention.
designCoordinated secondary analysis across six datasets from studies that used 6-7 days of observation following the introduction of PA measurement devices. Moderators of interest were demographic and study design characteristics.
methodsWe included data from participants ages 40-60 with ≥1 CVD factors who provided device-assessed PA behaviour across 6-7 days (N = 1825). We used multilevel modelling to examine participants' PA behaviour (i.e., activity units, steps per day) across days, with decreases in activity indicating reactivity. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < .05 and standardized effect sizes of interest were semipartial correlation coefficients (srs) ≥.25; we also report conversions to Cohen's d and corresponding equivalence tests.
resultsNo patterns met both criteria for significance for either main or moderation effects, including tests of study design features. Results from one small study showed a decrease in steps per day across days of observation (p = .15, sr = .26, d = .23, 90% CI: -.03, .50), though men showed an increase in steps per day (whereas women decreased).
conclusionsAdults in midlife with CVD risk factors show little evidence of PA measurement reactivity. We recommend continuing to examine PA patterns in individual studies, though widespread use of burdensome procedures to prevent reactivity is not warranted in this at-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.